[k1man]

IF and its a big IF I ever get to 100,000 on the K1 I might upgrade to a newer model, haha being permanently broke doesnt auger well for PENTAX or me, ian

[Andrea K]

I can add that also AF-C is working as expected:
Extract of a series: erratic movement of the male dancer also behind other dancers


Extract of a series: the girl went to the background and came back jumping

[biz-engineer]

Oh the shutter shock is there with MK2. Just use shutter speed between 0.5s and 1/20sec, put camera to multiexposure average mode and shoot the stack. Output is more or less messed up. Much less of an issue towards faster speeds or longer exposures.

Bad mouth here. Stacking multiexposure without alignement between frame abviously will cause blur because of any slight displacement of the camera or sensor between each frame. Stacking frames without alignment isn't a measure of shutter shock impact at all. I really don't like your incorrect statement above.

---------- Post added 15-01-19 at 13:32 ----------

Multiexposure, then tripod, then mirror lock up. I think that the problem isn't the camera.

Yes, you are correct.

---------- Post added 15-01-19 at 13:47 ----------

I prefer looking through a pentaprism viewfinder rather than an electronic one (DSLR vs mirrorless), however I recon that the future is for mirrorless cameras, compared to DSLRs they are:- Much more efficient with the light.- No vibrations that may affect the images.- Much less problems with AF.- Much more compact and lighter bodies.- Presumably cheaper.

For the time being, mirrorless models to the level of the Pentax K1 , are more expensive, and those mirrorless models bring no advantage for still photography, those MILC even have issues nicely put under the carpet by promoters of mirrorless. Currently, mechanical shutters of MILC cameras are usually lower quality compared to what's designed in DSLR, eventually produce more shutter shock do to light weight MILC bodies, and because the idea of MILC is to rely primarily on electronic shutter feature of the image sensor in order to simplify shutter actuation. The downside of electronic shutter and even EFCS is that it create some amount of distorsion on moving subjects, the Sony A9 partially addresses that, but not the other models. When using full mechanical shutter on the MILC camera, even the best models, generate more shutter shock that DSLRS. Evidence is the sharpness of the Nikon Z7 (brand new model) using mechanical shutter compared to the D850 with the same settings: reviewers have reported better sharpness with the D850, and test shots have shown the the Z7 suffer of a significant shutter shock when using its mechanical shutter. But obviously, promoters of mirrorless will nicely forget to refer to those issues, because mirrorless is the new thing to general business by making people switch from DSLR and renew their lenses as well.

[biz-engineer]

Received a K-1 II today, performed some quick tests to check that the camera is working fine. I can also say that it's very refined camera. The images render even better than the K-1, no issue with shutter shock (as opposed to what I can see on my K-1). And hand held pixel shift works great, images are gorgeous. What I can see if more like that Ricoh said when they released the Pentax K-1 II, and I don't see the negative things related to criticism of the reviews and all the fuzz reported here. To me the K-1 II, as far as my experience with it, is a very fine camera, I'm very happy with this new purchase.

[normhead]

Mixed feelings: some reviewers state worse results from the K1-II and some others state the opposite.

The ones who claim worse results don't show comparative images. Think about who "most reviewers" are. Some guy who started a blog. No other qualification is needed. They aren't screened, there is no accrediting body, they are essentially snake oil salesmen. Overall from what I can tell, they are an uneducated lot, their one common thing being, they've all held a lot of cameras for a short time.

Anyone who shoots Pentax on this site is more knowledgeable about Pentax than they are.

[biz-engineer]

From what I can see with the copy of K1 and K1II I have, the images I get with the K1 Mk II are like the K-1 image but a bit better: more microconstrast, less noise. And the K1 mk II is a bit faster to operate compared to K1 for some of image processing options such as skin tones and clarity.

[normhead]

For my use, where images are usually reduced in size for viewing, I'm guessing you aren't going to see a lot of difference. Only when you use every pixel are the differences likely to be noticeable. And when you look at the images, since the only way you are looking at that detail is in a print, the only information relevant is the size at which the differences become noticeable in a print file. On my screen with 109 PPI, it would have to be a 70 inch print to give you chance to see the difference. (My largest to date is 42 inches.) And even then, if and only if the printer is capable of differentiating that level of detail and personally I have no idea, but I suspect, based on comparison prints taken with other systems and posted in comparison videos, that printers do not.

As far as I can tell, the only possible use for such advantages is pixel peeping on computer screens. And in pixel peeping you've actually cropped the image so much you've lost the most important element, the composition. So, I'm kind of seeing this as a the K-1ii being the best at what matters the least. But of course, I'm always open to other points of view.

---

Last edited by normhead; 01-17-2019 at 10:30 AM.

[biz-engineer]

As far as I can tell, the only possible use for such advantages is pixel peeping on computer screens. And in pixel peeping you've actually cropped the image so much you've lost the most important element, the composition. So, I'm kind of seeing this as a the K-1ii being the best at what matters the least. But of course, I'm always open to other points of view.

What I'm referring above is an increase of image rendering when looking at the entire image (no pixel peeping). Loss of sharpness of K1 II over K1 is a lab thing, I don't see it practically when shooting hand held.

[normhead]

What I'm referring above is an increase of image rendering when looking at the entire image (no pixel peeping). Loss of sharpness of K1 II over K1 is a lab thing, I don't see it practically when shooting hand held.

SO umm... do you have examples?

I'm not saying you're wrong, Rondec says the same thing... sometimes folks just luck into a set of examples that show what they are talking about. Sometimes they aren't so lucky.

[biz-engineer]

I'm not saying you're wrong, Rondec says the same thing... sometimes folks just luck into a set of examples that show what they are talking about. Sometimes they aren't so lucky.

Well, I haven't bought the K1 II for showing others the difference in 800x600 pixels images. I bought the K1 II for myself. First impression is good. Ideally I would post comparisons, although I'm starting to fatigue with online stuff. Time to log out and go outdoor for some time.

[MJKoski]

I really don't like your incorrect statement above

You can mount the camera on 50kg rig or 5 ton rock on the beach and shoot away. You will get shutter shock either with single frames or an averaged stack. It does not matter. Stack is ruined when it is ruined by single frames blurred somewhere in between and that will happen with correct shutter speed. Exact same story as with D800E, D810 or A7R1 which I used extensively before K-1 bodies. Shutter mechanism is not dampened properly and it resonates with some lenses and most tripods. If one messes up a stack by moving the camera body during stacking, it is completely another issue. K-1 mk1 or 2 is not immune to shutter shock but it has good option to avoid it - EFCS in live view. It is real shame that fully electronic shutter utilized by PS is not allowed when shooting multiexposure stacks where it would really shine.

There is a trick to dampen shutter shock at certain shutter speeds which works with all cameras mentioned above. One needs to put some mass straight on the lens or tie it to the tripod by using a heavy rubber band. Or, if nothing else helps, get a grip on the lens and push down the tripod towards the ground with another hand.

[biz-engineer]

You can mount the camera on 50kg rig or 5 ton rock on the beach and shoot away. You will get shutter shock either with single frames or an averaged stack. It does not matter. Stack is ruined when it is ruined by single frames blurred somewhere in between and that will happen with correct shutter speed.

You didn't use 50kg rig when you stacked your shots. So your conclusion that shutter shock is the root cause of stack blur is invalid. K1 pixel size is 4.85um, you have to prove that the camera didn't move by more than 0.01um between frames of the stack, if you can prove that, I accept your conclusion that stack blur comes from shutter shock. If you used a 50kg tripod, was there any seismic activity from the deep ground in your area when you recording image frames? was the atmospheric air moving causing slight displacement of the tripod? How long was the capture of all the frames used in the stack?

[MJKoski]

No I did not use 50kg rig or 5 ton beach rock. Certain shutter speeds, as I wrote (from my own tests 0.5s to 1/20sec) are problematic no matter how you secure the camera. If the shutter mechanism resonates with the lens/tripod it just blurs the image. 100mm WR Macro has always been the one causing this and to lesser extend Zeiss 50MP (you can feel shutter activation when holding the metallic lens barrel). As soon as this resonance is taken care of, blurring is reduced significantly but not always completely. These single exposures are the problem, not the stacking itself which just used these problematic shutter speeds. Thus, I began to investigate why the stack was blurred and found out how to avoid the problem. So I do not use these certain speeds and stacks are sharp, and there was no poltergeist camera movement phenomenon. I wish fully electronic shutter could be used more as it goes all the way up to 30 seconds when using pixel-shift so it is not something that cannot be done technically.

I had very heavy duty carbon-magnesium Benro tripod which completely killed the resonance issue with tripod but did not remove occasional issues with the lens. Benro now rests in pieces and current Manfrotto carbon tripod is a bit less secure (going to be replaced at some point) causing minor vibrations.

So, in this order:

-avoid nasty shutter speeds, if not possible, then...
-stop any lens resonance and finally
-check for possible tripod resonance issues

Lenses I found problematic (metallic barrel):

-100mm WR Macro
-Zeiss 50MP

Lenses having no issues (composite construction):
-IRIX 15mm f/2.4 Firefly
-Samyang 35mm f/1.4

[biz-engineer]

as I wrote (from my own tests 0.5s to 1/20sec) are problematic no matter how you secure the camera. If the shutter mechanism resonates with the lens/tripod it just blurs the image.

With my copy of the Pentax K-1 Mk II, I don't have the shutter shock issue at any shutter speed, I'm afraid I can't confirm your experience.

[swanlefitte]

It is of interest that multiples of 50mm are reported to have it and not others. Does the shutter speed cause the vibrations wavelength to change or is it constant? If it is constant it could explain a correlation. It might also mean that certain focusing distances are more prone.